Decided on August 04,1965

Gaon Samaj And Another Respondents


Desai, C.J. - (1.)IN a proceeding Under Section 8 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood prior to its amendment in 1958, it was held by the Consolidation Officer that the Appellant had no rights in the land in dispute and that it was vested in the Gaon Samaj. The, Consolidation Officer's order was confirmed by a Settlement Officer and then by a Deputy Director in revision. When the matter was pending before the Dy. Director a statement of plots and tenure holders was prepared Under Section 11 and it contained the Appellant's name against the land in dispute. It was clearly a clerical or apparent error. When the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer had decided that the land vested in the Gaon Samaj and that the Appellant had no right in it, the Appellant's name ought to have been removed and the name of Gaon Samaj ought to have been inserted instead. The failure to do so was nothing but a clerical error, or on the face of the record. No objection was filed by the Gaon Samaj Under Section 12 as it might have been; but subsequently it applied for correction of the error Under Section 38 of the Act. The application was allowed and the correction was ordered by the Consolidation Officer, whose order was maintained on appeal by the Settlement officer. The Appellant submitted himself to these orders and did not challenge them by applying in revision to the Deputy Director. Instead, he filed an objection Under Section 20. That objection was dismissed by the lower authorities but was allowed by the Deputy Director on revision solely on the ground that the correction of the order under Section 38 was without jurisdiction. Against that order a petition for certiorari was filed by the Gaon Samaj and it has been allowed by our brother, K.B. Asthana.
(2.)THE main argument by Sri V.B.L. Srivastava is that, as no objection was filed by the Gaon Samaj against the statement of plots and tenure holders, it was not open to the Consolidation authorities to correct the entry Under Section 38. There is no force in this contention. Our learned brother has rightly observed that the power conferred by Section 38 to correct clerical or apparent errors is in the widest terms and has not been taken away by any of the other provisions of the Act. It is therefore, not taken away by any provision contained in Section 12. A clerical or apparent error can be corrected at any time, and there is no bar to its correction, the failure of the Gaon Samaj to file an objection Under Section 12 was no bar to the error being corrected Under Section 38.
Further, the order passed Under Section 38 was within the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer, because it was a clerical error or error on the face of the record. The Deputy Director could not set it aside in a collateral proceeding. The parties were bound by that order and the Appellant's objection Under Section 20 was bound to be dismissed on account of it. The Deputy Director acted without jurisdiction and the order was rightly set aside by our learned brother. We, therefore, dismiss the Special Appeal summarily.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.